As promised in my last post, this is my stab at what we might call the “distinctives” of a classical and Christ-centered approach to the teaching of science.  These are still lofty, theoretical ideals, and the fleshing out of them in the classroom is where things should prove interesting.  I will share with more detail some of my attempts at forming actual lessons around some of these ideals in a future post.  But, for now, let’s live in the clouds . . .

A classical, Christ-centered approach to teaching science:

1) Rejects many of the philosophies which are fundamental to the pursuit of modern science in the secular arena.  I will not attempt to list all of them nor will I define any of them here, but this list should include a) scientism, b) positivism, c) naturalism (both ontological and methodological), d) reductionism, and e) pragmatism.

2) Embraces the tension between the immanence of creation and its dependence on a transcendent Creator–what Jamie Smith refers to as a “participatory ontology.”

3) Embraces a charitable rather than coercive disposition towards creation; the exercise of responsible dominion looks more like cultivation of creation than control of creation.

4) Examines closely the philosophical and theological implications of scientific thought, and situates the milestones of scientific development within their corresponding philosophical and theological milieu.  In other words, teaches science as if it was done by real people who lived in real time and space.

5) Seeks to redeem the coherence between science and Christianity, noting the vital role that Christian thought played in the scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries and can play now within the ever-unfolding mysteries of the quantum world.

6) Considers theories of cosmogony and ontology through a lens of both general (the “scientific” evidence) and special (God’s ontological truths as revealed through Scripture) revelation.

7) Embraces a radical and humble epistemology–we must answer the question: what are the limits on what scientific investigation can tell us about the world?

8) Embraces a normed approach to scientific study: more important than the question of can we do something is the question of ought we to do something.

9) Affirms the study of creation as a form of worship, and accordingly situates scientific exploration and instruction within doxological bookends.

It annoys me that I could not come up with one more point to round out my list at ten items, so feel free to add #10 in the comments if you have a good suggestion.